It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Isn't there enough to think about without dragging in all these offbeat theories about holograms, drones, UFO's, reptilians, and any other speculative nonsense?
Nit picking a few pixels from mostly amateur photographs and videos is hardly going to progess the discovery of the truth.
Further compounding this pointless line of inquiry is all the (with all due respect here) insane alternative theories. I'm sorry, but very few rational people are going to look at a few discolored pixels and join the choir. There are enough statistical anomalies, timeline descrepencies and flat out caught-bold-faced lies surrounding 9/11 to destroy any "official" story, without needing to discredit the entire truth movement with all this extra garbage.
I often wonder, and this may just be me thinking wildly here
but I wonder.... How many of these wild claims are planted, intentionally, to catch and contain segments of the truth seekers to later discredit them. "You see, these people are just plain crazy!" I hate to be the bearer of bad news here folks, but lets think about it.
It is argued the planes could be drones because no luggage or bodies were found (or disclosed to have been found). Yet the official story reports the fire was hot enough to melt the steel and bring the towers down.
Most people will simply assume this is also hot enough to vaporize a corpse and its luggage. Your arguement sends you straight to the 'Nutter' bin.
It is argued the planes could have been holograms. Yes, theoretically possible, I suppose. But honestly, how many people are you going to convince of this with absolutely NO EVIDENCE. You offer a lack of evidence as proof.
Pods attached to the planes. Another bunch of misdirected counterintuitive speculation.
A few smudged pixels is evidence of one thing, and one thing only. Poor film quality, poor photography, and poor analysis. I can dig through the 10 boxes of photographs my mother in law has and produce probably hundreds of ghosts, bigfoot, chupacabra, UFO's, aliens and Santa. Just because mom is horrible with a camera, uses cheap film from walmart and a $40 camera doesn't prove any of these things, not counting the obvious. Gullibility.
I'm not trying to be hateful. I'm not trying to flame or troll or be a thorn in anyone's side.
I'm trying to make a simple point.
None of us are taken seriously because of the fringe crowd and their wild speculation. I enjoy a good read as much as the next guy, and find these arguements amusing, and though none can be readily disproven with physical evidence, there is plenty of circumstantial and logical arguements that lead one away from such ideas.
I do not make a habit of discussing my speculation on what really happened, unless directly asked, because thats all it is.
Sadly, I must preface every direction with "Please, take with a grain of salt the UFO, pod, hologram and 4th dimensional reptile theorists."
There is a TON of valuable information to be found in both schools, but sadly, our side of the fence has quite a few people who seem to want to discredit us all by making valid comments, pointing at solid evidence, then pulling on their crazy hat nice and tight and ranting about aliens and drone planes.
In direct reference to the photo that started the thread, the plane looks completely normal in every way. Funny that... a normal plane. Who'd have thought.
Originally posted by johnlear
What more evidence do you need. I mean its not like there was any wreckage remaining in or around the WTC.
Please allow these to load..
Steve, we are about 500,000 pounds of airplane short here. Got any other parts?
Steve these are all extruded metal piceces from the exterior of the WTC. That little green part with the 3 windows could not possibly have come from and airplane that took 2/5ths of a second to disappear into a building. This part of the exterior fuselage would have been crushed to smithereens. Use your noggin!
This photo is called the Wile E. Coyote WTC Memorial Cutout Scam. Controlled explosives where used to make this cutout coincide with holographic image being projected. No airplane actually crashed into the WTC. It was a PsyOp.
Regarding this image.. impact zone perfectly matches the shape of the plane. Metal shows signs of an object breaking in not exploding out.
If an airplane had really crashed into that building we should have most of the tail outside on the ground. The reason is that 60 feet inside was the core of the building which would have slowed the progress of the fuselage and instantly buckled the aft fuselage causing the tail to separate. You see when it hit the core with the nose there is still 95 feet of airplane outside the builiding. Thats why those videos of the crash are not realistic. They didn't account for the jolt when the nose hit the core.
Plane debris visible.
No. Sorry. No plane debris here. Plane debris would be horizontal and vertical stabilizers and parts of the fuselage. What you see here is concrete and metal extrusions.
Image of debris on the ground before either tower fell.
Yeah I think I see a 3 bladed propellor out there.
Tire in NYC.
Yeah off UAL 175 or AA 11. The axle should have serial numbers we could match with maintenance records.
But probably some one just dropped it off out of a van, like the engine.
Smouldering engine in NYC.
This is a smoldering CF-56 like they use on a Boeing 737 or 70 series DC-8's. Its too little to be off of a Boeing 767. CF-56 are made by General Electric and UAL whose airplane this supposedly came of uses Pratt & Whintey engines. Specifically the JT9D-7R4D. Sorry about that.
What do you have to counter these images?
You must be joking. Thats all you got for 500,000 lbs of airplanes?
Thanks for the post anyway.
Originally posted by LeeHarvey
Everyone saw the planes.. and photographed the planes.. and that proves.. holograms? I'm missing something here.